Ivan V. Mendenhall et al.

8 Cited authorities

  1. In re Geisler

    116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 46 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a 26 percent improvement in wear resistance insufficient to constitute proof of "substantially improved results"
  2. In re Jung

    637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 20 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the prima facie case during patent examination “is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production” from the PTO to the patent applicant
  3. In re Inland Steel Co.

    265 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding commercial success inadequate to rebut invalidity where there was a strong prima facie case of obviousness
  4. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 5,351 times   338 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."
  5. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 137 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"
  6. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 88 times   4 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  7. § 41.37 Appeal brief

    37 C.F.R. § 41.37   Cited 26 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Requiring identification of support in specification and, for means-plus-function limitations, corresponding structure as well
  8. § 1.136 Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 13 times   13 Legal Analyses

    (a)(1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)